Historically, such border violations have always been viewed as deliberate provocation, and have been understood as such in our world of nation states. Yet this has not applied, in the European view, to the "Jew among the states" (Hannah Arendt).

It seems the closer man lives to the soil, the more likely he is to view nature, and by extension God, as good. The further he is removed from the soil, the more likely he is to view the natural world with suspicion, even fear and contempt.

Commander Steve Allen, of the Metropolitan Police, who advises the Association of Chief Police Officers on honour-related violence, accepts that the decision not to outlaw forced marriage could be seen by some communities as a signal that it was acceptable. But he said that existing laws were adequate.

The Government dropped plans to make forced marriage illegal in June, after the Muslim Council of Britain cautioned that it could be "another way to stigmatise our communities", although it is not a practice supported by Islam or any other world religion.

I don't have the legal expertise to judge this, but I must say that, guessing, I would have assumed what Steve Allen says to be true: that existing laws were adequate; that under British law people couldn't be forced into marriage. In any event, of the two reasons set out here for not going ahead with new legislation, only one of them is good (assuming Allen to be right). The other reason isn't. The rights of young women not to be forced into marriage shouldn't take second place to vague talk about stigmatization. How could a fundamental right protecting people against leading unfree lives be disregarded just because to enforce it might show someone else in a bad light? There's a solution to that problem - respecting the right.

Here's a new concept in funerals - well, new to me anyway. In fact, it's reported as an old one:

Striptease send-offs at funerals might become a thing of the past in eastern China after five people were arrested for organising the intimate farewells, state media reported today.

Police swooped last week after two groups of strippers gave "obscene performances" at a farmer's funeral in Donghai County, Jiangsu province, Xinhua news agency said.

The disrobing served a higher purpose, the report noted.

"Striptease used to be a common practice at funerals in Donghai's rural areas to allure viewers," it said.

"Local villagers believe that the more people who attend the funeral, the more the dead person is honoured".

Is the purpose really higher if you need so 'low' an appeal to realize it? Does the means lower the end, so to say? And why haven't you sent me an answer to the tough question I posed for you here? (Thanks: HS.)

But a remarkable global phenomenon is being obscured by headlines about bombs and conflict in the Middle East. The ancient scourge of war has disappeared, at least in the sense of one government's army doing battle with another.

Last week marked 1,000 consecutive days with no wars between nations anywhere in the world, since the night in November 2003 when India and Pakistan instituted a cease-fire. This is the longest episode of interstate peace in more than half a century.

August 30, 2006

Further to this post, there's an account here of an Israeli reservist's experience going into Lebanon. This is how it concludes:

What is most prevalent now is a feeling that it isn't over. That the war and its uncertain outcome have failed to resolve any of the underlying factors that led to its outbreak. This is the factor fuelling the urgency of the protests now being organised by reserve soldiers. The anger and disgust felt by many of those who fought in Lebanon and returned does not represent a crisis of Israeli identity or national ideals, but rather a re-affirmation of them. This, however, goes together with a deep sense that the hedonism, cynicism, mediocrity and corruption that prevail among large sections of our leadership are not worthy of the sacrifices made for the country by the frontline soldiers.

Whether Israel will find within itself a spirit worthy of this sacrifice, and whether this spirit can find its way to the leadership of the country is the key issue. The forces arrayed against us throughout the region and beyond it are vigorous, youthful and suffused with a fanatical hatred. We will prevail against them, I believe, on condition that we can make of ourselves and our society a thing that does not shame those who died in its defence and preservation.

So long as I'm on thatsubject, here's an excellent piece by Martin Wolf that appeared first in the FT (subscription only) and can now be read here:

British Muslim groups have, in response to recent events, written to the prime minister to ask for urgent changes in UK foreign policy. They argue, in particular, that the "debacle in Iraq" and the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to hostilities in the Middle East provides "ammunition to extremists who threaten us all". The government must abandon its foreign policy because it enrages a minority of a minority and so "risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad".

Three MPs, three peers and 38 groups signed a letter advancing these views. How should the overwhelming majority of British citizens who are not Muslims respond? My answer is that they should reject these positions because they are undemocratic, false and dangerous.

Consider, first, democracy. The country has an elected government, with the right to carry out a foreign policy. The argument that the government should abandon those policies, not because they are wrong but because they may provoke atrocities by a small minority of extremists acting under the banner of religion, is the abandonment of democratic government to the fear of extreme violence. This argument can only encourage the terrorists. It is illegitimate and unacceptable.

Consider, then, the policy itself. What is so outrageous to Muslims about foreign policy under Tony Blair?...